Yeah I suppose it comes with the turf in a hobby where a lot of people are seeking/want to refine some sort of ethno-historic identity.

My grandfather called himself a "Suraya," his grandfather before him, and so on. We had lived in northern Mesopotamia for at least as long as there was a Church of the East. We speak an Aramaic dialect tied to that specific area (the Tigris and points immediately east), with a history in Mesopotamia dating back to the BCE. We are genetically (and in other ways) similar to populations with ancient histories in the area, etc. If trying to further connect to my past is a crime, well, then, I am guilty. Since I am not hurting anyone, and always try and remain civil in my discussions with others, I really do not see what the problem is. At least in my case. Plus, again, I am not even saying R-L23 originated in northern Mesopotamia. If we could choose where it originated, I would vote for Europe, because I know how much it means to so many people of European ancestry.

I think the important thing is we need to stop looking at peoples as lineages from one common ancestor as in many national legends. I also think its important not to label a lineage as literrally being equal to an ethnicity. A particular lines will pass through many linguistic and cultural identities except perhaps in very isolated areas. Places like the middle east have far more complex ethno-linguistic histories than somewhere like Ireland for example. I actually appreciate the knowledge of the middle east and input. I tend to think L23 came from a little to the north but even if my guess is right (and I really have not much confidence in any theory) it could have been in northern Mesopotomia for 5000 years.

And Anatolia is a broad term. R1b diversity seems to suggest it origin n the area encompassing Eastern Anatolia, Northern Iraq, Armenia and NW Iran. Hardly what I would call European.

Uhmm, the data collected from Myres.et.al.2010 regarding R1b-L23+ shows Poland having a higher diversity than Anatolia in terms of R1b-L23+, Pakistan does have the highest diversity, but its small sample size does call into question the validity of the result. Also, all the R1b-L23+ found in Pakistan is R1b-L23(xL51).

Now there are 23 haplotypes typed for 37 STRs. Out of those 1-Italian has some uncertainty in the STR values, so I didn't included.

Now there are 15 with known European origin:

Italy-6Ukraine-4Belarus-2Poland-1France-1UK-1

There are 7 with known SW Asian origin:

Turkey-4Syria-1Armenia-1Kazakhstan-1

For what it is worth:

R1b-M269(xL23) using 37 STRs

Europe (n=15, var=0.3189)

SW Asia (n=7, var=0.2857)

This is in agreement with the data from Myres et al(2010) where

R1b-M269(xL23) using 10 STRs

Europe (n=17, var=0.2706)

SW Asia (n=13, var=0.2385)

One can argue that the sample sizes are rather small, but it is all we got now both from the hobbyist community and Academic studies. In both cases using 10, 37, or 67 STRs the paragroup R1b-M269(xL23) has consistently more variance in Europe than outside of it.

Yeah I suppose it comes with the turf in a hobby where a lot of people are seeking/want to refine some sort of ethno-historic identity. I get sick of the transparent obsession some people have about making their own haplogroup or that which is strong in their population as early and indigenous as possible. In other words you are more of a 'true' member of your ethnic or national group because you are earlier or it proves some political point. There is also far too much talk of 'pure' populations of single yDNA lineages. There is also a bit too much admiration for violent conquest. There is also too much childish heavy metal type fantasies for conan the barbarian types (some people never grow up). Then there is the seeking of glory in claims that one's own haplogroup did this or that. There is a lot of obsessing about Indo-European and a desperation to be part of that. There is often a suggestion of superiority or a desire to associate with northern Europeans and nordics in general. Ringing any alarm bells? I Those ideas seem live and well in this hobby.

All that is true and, as you said, pretty obvious. I'm not sure it can be helped, however. We all want our ancestors, especially those in our own direct y-dna line, to be heroic and larger than life.

I am susceptible to that urge myself, but I like to think I have a kind of nose for the truth, even when it is not what I would have preferred, that gives me a certain immunity from the worst fantasy-hobbyist excesses.

The complexity of this past time is daunting. It requires expertise in genetics, history, archaeology, anthropology, mathematics, linguistics, geography, and more. Who is the master of all those fields? Not I!

That complexity makes all of these competing hypotheses possible, and it makes even some of those that are probably patently ridiculous sound - for a time - credible.

There have been quite a few times, especially recently, that I have contemplated abandoning an interest in and the pursuit of "deep ancestry" and restricting myself to personal genealogy. Personal family genealogy is the interest that got me into dna testing in the first place, although when I ordered my first 37-marker y-dna test I did harbor a silly, childish desire to be a "Viking". :-)

:0) my post was a bit overly serious and all of us deep down would like a particularly interesting deep ancestry. its just the mix of traits I posted are a bit alarming. I have to be honest though I quiet liked the idea of being a western refugia hunter gather. I always thought I would much prefer their lifestyle (called 'the first affluent society') to farming. Still, everyones ancestors were hunters somewhere at some time. I am now curious as to where R1b's Ice Age eastern refuge was. Jean M has made some suggestions. I would like to find out a bit more but with the origin point of R1b and R1 a little vague (anywhere from Siberia to Anatolia) it would be complex. I think we need some sort of study specifically targetted on early R1b. I suppose at the LGM it was still really R1, maybe with early R1a and R1b. Now I have accepted the variance dating I am no longer convinced R1b was in the farming zone so I would tend to think of its likely refuge as being further north than Anatolia or Mesopotamia. If it had been that far south it would have been in the epicentre of early farming. R1b above M269 (and below it too for some time) does not have the branching expanding structure you would expect for a haoplogroup who experienced the farming demographic explosion. I think what has been lost sight of due to the contrasting European distributions of much later clades is the similarity of R1a and R1b prior to say 4000BC. They both seem to have been really in the backwoods and demographically not doing well. The simplest explanation is they were both late hunter-gatherers in or adjacent to the steppes.

That is a stretch and based on speculation and wishful thinking. I would like to see evidence of the Hittie empire being responsible for all this R1b.

Its just a guess but it does have some aspects in its favour. An intrusion from the north into the area to the south of L23* would match the early splitting off of Anatolian from PIE. Most people are placing the PIE homeland in and around the steppes. IMO L23* is probably the top candidate for the arrival of Anatolian. There just are not too many other candidates. L23* also seems to have remained in the general IE area for a long period given that it has some fairly strong associations with some Iranian and Armenian groups. However this is all speculative.

The most persuasive aspect for R1b coming from the north is that it the R1b tree. It does not have the deep branches bushy aspect until very late which is indicative to me that R1b did not enter the farming area/take up farming until very late, much the same as is suggested for R1a. I just do not believe R1b has a structure and dating suggestive of its presence in the areas where farming goes back 10000 years. R1b only seems to have only started taking off from L23 onwards. I do think its first move was into Anatolia and adjacent but I am not convinced ALL L23 moved there before moving further west. I think it is likely that another chunk of L23 moved directly west from its origin. I am not sure about the origin point. We need to look for an area outside the early agriculture zone in a group who remained non-farming until the copper age. If R1b had been right in the earliest farming core of northern Mesopotamia I would have thought that it would have a very very different structure and variance dates. I think that is the single most persausive evidence that R1b was not in in the Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Levant etc at an early point in the Neolithic. However, I do believe that the first thrust of L23 from its origin point was probably in the direction of Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia and obviously V88 made a similar journey. So, I dont think those areas were the origin point but I do think the path south was taken somewhat sooner than the path west.

Does anyone think the basic outlline of R1b in the introduction of his paper (if you ignore his futher expansion on this) is OK

South Siberia/Central Asia in the east (where R1b haplogroup arose ~16,000 ybp) via the North Kazakhstan, South Ural to the Russian Plain and further west to Europe (the northern route entering Europe around 4500 ybp); from the Russian Plain south to the Caucasus (6000 ybp), Asia Minor (6000 ybp) and the Middle East (6000 - 5500 ybp) to the Balkans in Europe (the southern route, entering Europe around 4500 ybp);

Is his placing of early R1b to the north sound? He seems pretty convinced on that and I would tend to agree that the structure and variance of R1b pre-4000BC does agree with something along the lines of the extract above. Can anyone comment on this?

I think the important thing is we need to stop looking at peoples as lineages from one common ancestor as in many national legends. I also think its important not to label a lineage as literrally being equal to an ethnicity.

The area was a melting pot. Nearly 1500 years of Muslim domination has homogenized the gene pool, to the extent that it is difficult (though certainly possible) to distinguish between Mesopotamian-Aramaic-speaking peoples, including Assyrians, Mandaeans, and many Mizrahim Jews. That is why, when Jean provided support for your statement regarding reliance on R-M269 diversity in Assyrians, I did not ask any further questions. Because I am in agreement that we must be cautious in relying on such data, given what the historical record states regarding population movements to and fro this part of the world, not too long ago (~2500 years), all things considered.

* In the Dur-Sharrukin cylinder inscription, the task of linguistic unification is given to the Assyrian monarch Sargon II, who ruled from 722 to 705 B.C.:

Quote

"Peoples of the four regions of the world, of foreign tongue and divergent speech, dwellers of mountain and lowland, all that were ruled by the light of the gods, lord of all, I carried off at Assur, my lord's command, by the might of my scepter. I made them of one mouth [Assyrian-Aramaic]..."

... One can argue that the sample sizes are rather small, but it is all we got now both from the hobbyist community and Academic studies. In both cases using 10, 37, or 67 STRs the paragroup R1b-M269(xL23) has consistently more variance in Europe than outside of it.

I agree with you that some of the sample sizes and available STRs in some cases are quite limiting. Geographic divisions also have some nuances - for instance how to handle some religious groups or how to handle the Steppes areas. Where did you count R-M269* folks like the below?

So if anything the presence of Jewish members actually lowered the diversity of R1b-M269(xL23) in Europe, this is likely due to some sort of Jewish cluster. Like I said before this is in agreement with the data from Myres et al(2010) where

I doubt the Anglo-Saxons would have conquered the Britons if they hadnt been disarmed by the Romans for 400 years and expecting professional protection. If the Anglo-Saxons had tried to cross to Britain in pre-Roman times I think they would have quickly been sent packing and would probably have just been pirates (without the hook hand, wooden leg, eye patch and parrot)

True, plus the fact that the Britons warred against each other and at times allied themselves to the Anglo-Saxons. Look at the betrayal and murder of Urien of Rheged by fellow Britons just when he was about to drive the Northumbrians into the sea.

I also suspect, given the widespread survival of L21 in what is now England, that young British warriors took service in Anglo-Saxon warbands (the Gefolge or Posse Comitatus).

[quote author=intrestedinhistory link=topic=10670.msg132167#msg132167 And Anatolia is a broad term. R1b diversity seems to suggest it origin n the area encompassing Eastern Anatolia, Northern Iraq, Armenia and NW Iran. Hardly what I would call European.[/quote]

Europe is also a large enough continent that there is gentic diversity from Greece to Iceland, or to Finland. Somewhere close to Greece is imaginable and not at all unrealistic. Heck, I think the Balkans as a point of origin for R1b is to some extent viable. However, West-Central Anatolia is the best bet when all things considered if you examine the distribution of R1b1* and R1b1c.

So if anything the presence of Jewish members actually lowered the diversity of R1b-M269(xL23) in Europe, this is likely due to some sort of Jewish cluster. Like I said before this is in agreement with the data from Myres et al(2010) where

I'm not entirely convinced that R1b1b2a cut across Poland in ancient times. There are many explanations as to how a few L23* haplotypes arrived there. It is probably a very complex story. (Italy, Balkans, Central Asia...etc and a near infinite other set of possibilities)

This wouldn't have bearing on whether or not you had a high Ashkenazi percentage or not. The high % share is the result of recent founding effect - they are more related to one another than with any single outgroup, where as a single R1b1b2a* individual could have arrived in his current location 1000 years ago or more from another near infinite number of possibilites.

I think almost all of them tested long ago -- only two within the last two years. They look like L150* to me, but could perhaps be something a little more specific that wasn't known that long ago. And btw the most recent tester with that haplotype, 176123, is also in the project -- just a little farther down. Your post mentions him separately.

This Polish cluster (or family) looks like a group that might nominate a member for a WTY or a genome scan. With regard to their asterisk, the ISOGG tree and Thomas Krahn's tree don't show any alternatives for M269, L23, or L150 except M51 (for which these guys have already tested negative). But the invisibility of some SNP on either of those trees is not an indication that the said SNP does not exist.

Now there are 9 with known European origin:Italy-6Poland-1France-1UK-1

There are 7 with known SW Asian origin:Turkey-4Syria-1Armenia-1Kazakhstan-1

For what it is worth:R1b-M269(xL23) using 37 STRsEurope (n=9, var=0.3423) SW Asia (n=7, var=0.2857)

So if anything the presence of Jewish members actually lowered the diversity of R1b-M269(xL23) in Europe, this is likely due to some sort of Jewish cluster. Like I said before this is in agreement with the data from Myres et al(2010) where

I'm not about to discern the Jewish from the non-Jewish. I think it is something to deal with but I don't want to touch discerning who is really who and whether they are sourced out of the Near East or not - which is a critical discussion.

Have you tried to compare these variance results with the large L11 subclades? As you know, I try to cross-check haplogroups and data. The below is what I have from our DNA projects as far as relative variance.67 STR Ht's...R-M269* All_________: Var=0.96 [Mixed 49] (N=22)R-M269* All_________: Var=0.71 [Linear 36] (N=22)37 STR Ht's...R-M269* All_________: Var=1.02 [Linear 16] (N=32)R-M269* All_________: Var=1.15 [Mixed 24] (N=32)

Any fewer STRs I don't think are worth looking at much. That's just my opinion from experience of how much relative variance jumps around at shorter haplotypes.

Oh, perhaps the most important thing is that the relative variance numbers above are relative to P312 "all" and U152 actually has slightly higher variance. Why do I bring this point up? R-M269 should be quite a bit older, right? Why do these numbers for R-M269* show up as being around P312's (which would be 1.0.)? You guessed it, these samples of R-M269* are not representative of the true diversity of R-M269*.

The net is looking at very low sample sizes with a limited number of STRs for R-M269* is not that meaningful.

I tried to make this point on R-L51* too. Try to go back and visualize the whole Y DNA tree from R1b (M343) down. There is a tremendous amount of data for L11, particularly P312 and U106. These two are very heavy/big branches to a lopsided R1b-M343 bush. There are scant remnant branches of the M343+ L23- and to the L23+ L11- branches, but they are are scant enough to be possibly misleading. Major parts of those old branches are missing and have gone extinct or have otherwise died off.

This is just my opinion, but beyond L11, the only groupings of R1b that have enough data and differentiation in data to discern much with are R-L23xL11 groups.

I tried to make this point on R-L51* too. Try to go back and visualize the whole Y DNA tree from R1b (M343) down. There is a tremendous amount of data for L11, particularly P312 and U106. These two are very heavy/big branches to a lopsided R1b-M343 bush. There are scant remnant branches of the M343+ L23- and to the L23+ L11- branches, but they are are scant enough to be possibly misleading. Major parts of those old branches are missing and have gone extinct or have otherwise died off.

This is just my opinion, but beyond L11, the only groupings of R1b that have enough data and differentiation in data to discern much with are R-L23xL11 groups.

Perhaps this is just anecdotal information, but if we want to look for where R1b-M269 is from then we might want to look at his brothers and cousins and see where they intersect with R-M269 (R1b1a2).

The most populous would be:R1b-V88 (R1b1c) - Wikipedia: "Apart from individuals in southern Europe and Western Asia, the majority of R-V88 was found in northern and central Africa"R1b-M73 (R1b1a1) - Myres: ""all except two Russians occurred outside Europe, either in the Caucasus, Turkey, the Circum-Uralic and North Pakistan regions."R1b-P25* (R1b1*) - Wikipedia: "like R1b* is rare. As mentioned above, examples are described in older articles, for example two in a sample from Turkey."

Perhaps this is just anecdotal information, but if we want to look for where R1b-M269 is from then we might want to look at his brothers and cousins and see where they intersect with R-M269 (R1b1a2).

The most populous would be:R1b-V88 (R1b1c) - Wikipedia: "Apart from individuals in southern Europe and Western Asia, the majority of R-V88 was found in northern and central Africa"R1b-M73 (R1b1a1) - Myres: ""all except two Russians occurred outside Europe, either in the Caucasus, Turkey, the Circum-Uralic and North Pakistan regions."R1b-P25* (R1b1*) - Wikipedia: "like R1b* is rare. As mentioned above, examples are described in older articles, for example two in a sample from Turkey."

R-V88+ went to Africa from elsewhere (someone thinks from Asia, I think from Europe: Spain or Italy). They lack the ancestor R-V88-, present in Sardinia and Europe (3 out of 5 in the paper of Cruciani).

R-M73 is diffused in Central Asia, but also in Europe, and I think with higher variance.

R1b1* (i.e. R-V88-) is present amongst Jews, but in an unique haplotype, come as usual from elsewhere, but massively in Spaniards and British, with highest variance. I have written infinite times that from these European haplotypes with YCAII=18-22 and 18-23 (present both only in Italy) derive the European subclades and not from the Eastern with YCAII=21-23 or 23-23.

R-M335 descend from R-V88- with YCAII=18-23, the European one and not the eastern one.

Your war is lost at least from 6 years, from when I began to write in these forums.

I'm not about to discern the Jewish from the non-Jewish. I think it is something to deal with but I don't want to touch discerning who is really who and whether they are sourced out of the Near East or not - which is a critical discussion.

There seems to be quite a significant amount of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Balkans, at least relative to other places.

Have you tried to compare these variance results with the large L11 subclades? As you know, I try to cross-check haplogroups and data. The below is what I have from our DNA projects as far as relative variance.67 STR Ht's...R-M269* All_________: Var=0.96 [Mixed 49] (N=22)R-M269* All_________: Var=0.71 [Linear 36] (N=22)37 STR Ht's...R-M269* All_________: Var=1.02 [Linear 16] (N=32)R-M269* All_________: Var=1.15 [Mixed 24] (N=32)

Any fewer STRs I don't think are worth looking at much. That's just my opinion from experience of how much relative variance jumps around at shorter haplotypes.

No, I haven’t tried to compare the variance of paragroup R1b-M269(xL23) to that of everything that is R1b-P312+, mainly due to the fact that R1b-M269(xL23) is very scarce, unlike R1b-L23(xL51) which is to the Caucasus R1b what R1b-P312 is to Western European R1b.

Oh, perhaps the most important thing is that the relative variance numbers above are relative to P312 "all" and U152 actually has slightly higher variance. Why do I bring this point up? R-M269 should be quite a bit older, right? Why do these numbers for R-M269* show up as being around P312's (which would be 1.0.)? You guessed it, these samples of R-M269* are not representative of the true diversity of R-M269*.

Ok, feel free to think whatever you want about the representativeness of the samples, interestingly enough they seem to yield similar results, be it the Myres.et.al.2010 data, or be it the data collected from ht35. Of course, in order to push for a West Asian origin, etc, one has to ignore certain data. Hopefully sometime in the future we’ll get enough data regarding R1b-M269(xL23), I think more data can only do good, so the more the better.

The net is looking at very low sample sizes with a limited number of STRs for R-M269* is not that meaningful.

Ht35 haplotypes used has low sample sizes(i.e. 9 and 7) but used decent amount of STRs, Myres.et.al.2010 had a decent sample size, but used low amount of STRs, yet both yielded the same results. Interesting to say the least, maybe we are looking at the first ever example of an error giving consistent results.

I tried to make this point on R-L51* too. Try to go back and visualize the whole Y DNA tree from R1b (M343) down. There is a tremendous amount of data for L11, particularly P312 and U106. These two are very heavy/big branches to a lopsided R1b-M343 bush. There are scant remnant branches of the M343+ L23- and to the L23+ L11- branches, but they are are scant enough to be possibly misleading. Major parts of those old branches are missing and have gone extinct or have otherwise died off.

Well, L23(xL51) is heavily used in terms of calculating variance, are we to be worried about major parts of those old branches being missing or having gone extinct? I mean some of the meaningful conclusions about the origin of R1b in Europe have been based off L23(xL51) diversity, but since you mentioned those concerns, now I’m starting to worry.

This is just my opinion, but beyond L11, the only groupings of R1b that have enough data and differentiation in data to discern much with are R-L23xL11 groups.

How do you know they have enough data? They (L23xL51) seem to be big enough in places like the Caucasus, and Turkey, the Middle East, as they are the dominant R1b clade over there, what makes you think that they haven’t suffered the same effects as R1b-M269(xL23), I mean perhaps European L23xL51 is nothing but what survives of a recent expansion, the old L23xL51 folks are either long dead, or show up as outlier haplotypes every now and then, but given the samples sizes they have very little effect on the variance of L23xL51.

Perhaps this is just anecdotal information, but if we want to look for where R1b-M269 is from then we might want to look at his brothers and cousins and see where they intersect with R-M269 (R1b1a2).

The most populous would be:R1b-V88 (R1b1c) - Wikipedia: "Apart from individuals in southern Europe and Western Asia, the majority of R-V88 was found in northern and central Africa"R1b-M73 (R1b1a1) - Myres: ""all except two Russians occurred outside Europe, either in the Caucasus, Turkey, the Circum-Uralic and North Pakistan regions."R1b-P25* (R1b1*) - Wikipedia: "like R1b* is rare. As mentioned above, examples are described in older articles, for example two in a sample from Turkey."

Are you sure about the presence of R1b-P25* in Turkey?

Quote from: Cruciani.et.al.2010

In total, 997 chromosomes belonging to the haplogroup R1b were found. The paragroup R-M343*, earlier reported in a single subject from Turkey,28 was not observed. The overall scenario was characterized by a strong inter-continental differentiation (Table 1). All the African R1b chromosomes, with the exception of one eastern- and a few northern-African R-M269 chromosomes, turned out to belong to the haplogroup R-V88. About one third of the African R-V88 chromosomes carried mutation V69, which was not observed outside Africa. The large majority of R1b chromosomes from western Eurasia carried, as expected, the M269 mutation; only five R-V88 chromosomes were observed, three of which carried distinctive mutations (M18, V35, and V7). The rare R1b chromosomes observed in Asia were either R-M73 or R-M269. The R-P25* paragroup was only found in five subjects from Europe (3), western Asia (1), and eastern Asia (1) (Table 1).

The net is looking at very low sample sizes with a limited number of STRs for R-M269* is not that meaningful.

Ht35 haplotypes used has low sample sizes(i.e. 9 and 7) but used decent amount of STRs, Myres.et.al.2010 had a decent sample size, but used low amount of STRs, yet both yielded the same results. Interesting to say the least, maybe we are looking at the first ever example of an error giving consistent results.

"maybe we are looking at the first ever example of an error...".....You are kidding me on this response, right? If we see red come up three times in row on a roulett.e wheel should we think all spins will result in red? I've seen that so perhaps that is the second ever example of a misleading result from limited underlying data popping up in multiple ways.

Perhaps this is just anecdotal information, but if we want to look for where R1b-M269 is from then we might want to look at his brothers and cousins and see where they intersect with R-M269 (R1b1a2).

The most populous would be:R1b-V88 (R1b1c) - Wikipedia: "Apart from individuals in southern Europe and Western Asia, the majority of R-V88 was found in northern and central Africa"R1b-M73 (R1b1a1) - Myres: ""all except two Russians occurred outside Europe, either in the Caucasus, Turkey, the Circum-Uralic and North Pakistan regions."R1b-P25* (R1b1*) - Wikipedia: "like R1b* is rare. As mentioned above, examples are described in older articles, for example two in a sample from Turkey."

Are you sure about the presence of R1b-P25* in Turkey?

Quote from: Cruciani.et.al.2010

In total, 997 chromosomes belonging to the haplogroup R1b were found. The paragroup R-M343*, earlier reported in a single subject from Turkey,28 was not observed. The overall scenario was characterized by a strong inter-continental differentiation (Table 1). All the African R1b chromosomes, with the exception of one eastern- and a few northern-African R-M269 chromosomes, turned out to belong to the haplogroup R-V88. About one third of the African R-V88 chromosomes carried mutation V69, which was not observed outside Africa. The large majority of R1b chromosomes from western Eurasia carried, as expected, the M269 mutation; only five R-V88 chromosomes were observed, three of which carried distinctive mutations (M18, V35, and V7). The rare R1b chromosomes observed in Asia were either R-M73 or R-M269. The R-P25* paragroup was only found in five subjects from Europe (3), western Asia (1), and eastern Asia (1) (Table 1).

If you think it is wrong, please contact them and see if you can get it updated. It would be of value for everyone. Thanks in advance if you choose to.

I see you have a source, Cruciani 2010, that shows "R-P25* paragroup" as appearing in West Asia and East Asia. I wonder how there could be such a rare find as far away as East Asia? particularly given that testing rates are so much higher in Europe than in Asia?

I'll re-iterate this point that I've made before. Do you see what happens when we (I'm including myself) start arguing by exception from anecdotal data? It means very little and is wide open to cherry picking.

I am also not sure that R1b is from Asia. It could have originated in Europe. You could be right if that is what you are proposing. I don't think R1b originated in Europe, though, for a variety of reasons, but none the least are the anciently related cousins like R1a, R2, and Q (the P haplogroup (M45) family) found out that direction.

Quote from: Wikipedia

Haplogroup P is a branch of Haplogroup MNOPS, which is a branch of Haplogroup K (M9). It is believed to have arisen north of the Hindu Kush, in Siberia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, or along the Silk Road in the region of Xinjiang, Gansu, or Ningxia, before being pressed North, approximately 35,000 years ago. An alternate postulated theory supported by Gansu, Ningxia is that this group moved along the opposite side of the Tibetan plateau along the Sichuan Mountains, before taking the silk route and Bering land bridge. The climate was much different and would have supported more life and grasslands in Tarim Basin, Mongolia, and Manchuria. The sea levels were up to 370 feet lower 18,000 years ago, and significantly lower the last 100,000 years, allowing for an easy expansion of Haplogroup K throughout East Asia, and through the grasslands north of Beijing, going West to the Tarim Basin and North East to Manchuria.The descendant haplogroups of P include Q (M242) and R (M207).

I am not at all sure that the idea that L23* in Europe were IE's but L51 and downstream were earlier non-IEs. I understand that, other than perhaps Romania, L23xL51 is about the same age as L51 derived clades. That makes L23* sound rather like a remnant element among the L51 and derived thrust into Europe. It also seems a perculiar deduction given that L51 derived clades appear so overwhelmingly IE while L23xL51 is a mixed bag of IE and non-IE. I would also feel that L51 is more likely to be derived from non-Anatolian L23* because the IE languages of western Europe are not derived from the side branch that is the Anatolian languages but from a branch who remained closer to the PIE core for longer and according to Kurgan type models that would imply a thrust into central Europe and beyond from an area to the north of Anatolia. All western and central IE languages are derived from PIE not Anatolian.

I tried to make this point on R-L51* too. Try to go back and visualize the whole Y DNA tree from R1b (M343) down. There is a tremendous amount of data for L11, particularly P312 and U106. These two are very heavy/big branches to a lopsided R1b-M343 bush. There are scant remnant branches of the M343+ L23- and to the L23+ L11- branches, but they are are scant enough to be possibly misleading. Major parts of those old branches are missing and have gone extinct or have otherwise died off.

Well, L23(xL51) is heavily used in terms of calculating variance, are we to be worried about major parts of those old branches being missing or having gone extinct? I mean some of the meaningful conclusions about the origin of R1b in Europe have been based off L23(xL51) diversity, but since you mentioned those concerns, now I’m starting to worry.

This is just my opinion, but beyond L11, the only groupings of R1b that have enough data and differentiation in data to discern much with are R-L23xL11 groups.

How do you know they have enough data? They (L23xL51) seem to be big enough in places like the Caucasus, and Turkey, the Middle East, as they are the dominant R1b clade over there, what makes you think that they haven’t suffered the same effects as R1b-M269(xL23), I mean perhaps European L23xL51 is nothing but what survives of a recent expansion, the old L23xL51 folks are either long dead, or show up as outlier haplotypes every now and then, but given the samples sizes they have very little effect on the variance of L23xL51.

I am not at all sure if we have enough data and that it is representative enough. I am saying that there is a difference between looking at R-M269xL23 data versus R-L23xL11 versus R-P312 or R-U106 long haplotype data from our DNA projects.

M269 has to be older than L23, phylogenetically speaking, and should exhibit much higher STR diversity than its g-grandsons P312 and U106. However, the M269* from long haplotypes in our DNA projects does not exhibit the relative STR diversity reflective of its age.

L23 has to be younger than M269 and older than P312 and U106, phylogenetically speaking. Therefore L23xL11 should have less STR diversity than M269 and more than P312 and U106.

This is simplistic and inconclusive, but I'll report on this and you (all) decide. Here are the relative variances (to P312) for are all of the L23xL11 67 STR haplotypes I can find in our DNA projects.R-L23xL11___________: Var=1.53 [Mixed 49] (N=166)R-L23xL11___________: Var=1.49 [Linear 36] (N=166)

166 in total, not a small data set, but do you notice these numbers like 1.53 and 1.49 represent about 50% greater variance than P312 and a bit more than that for U106? In my opinion, a 50% difference is worth considering.

Let's consider the Steppes as NOT being European for purposes of this discussion (BTW, I've been doing this all along so I apologize if I've not been clear.)

Let's remove the European and New World MDKAs and I come up with 88 67 STR haplotypes that are effectively SW Asian and Steppes related.R-L23xL11___________: Var=1.75 [Mixed 49] (N=88)R-L23xL11___________: Var=1.75 [Linear 36] (N=88)

Perhaps this is just anecdotal information, but if we want to look for where R1b-M269 is from then we might want to look at his brothers and cousins and see where they intersect with R-M269 (R1b1a2).

The most populous would be:R1b-V88 (R1b1c) - Wikipedia: "Apart from individuals in southern Europe and Western Asia, the majority of R-V88 was found in northern and central Africa"R1b-M73 (R1b1a1) - Myres: ""all except two Russians occurred outside Europe, either in the Caucasus, Turkey, the Circum-Uralic and North Pakistan regions."R1b-P25* (R1b1*) - Wikipedia: "like R1b* is rare. As mentioned above, examples are described in older articles, for example two in a sample from Turkey."

R-V88+ went to Africa from elsewhere (someone thinks from Asia, I think from Europe: Spain or Italy). They lack the ancestor R-V88-, present in Sardinia and Europe (3 out of 5 in the paper of Cruciani).

R-M73 is diffused in Central Asia, but also in Europe, and I think with higher variance.

R1b1* (i.e. R-V88-) is present amongst Jews, but in an unique haplotype, come as usual from elsewhere, but massively in Spaniards and British, with highest variance. I have written infinite times that from these European haplotypes with YCAII=18-22 and 18-23 (present both only in Italy) derive the European subclades and not from the Eastern with YCAII=21-23 or 23-23.

R-M335 descend from R-V88- with YCAII=18-23, the European one and not the eastern one.

Your war is lost at least from 6 years, from when I began to write in these forums.

You're cherry picking a handful of British Americans (among dozens of Near-Easterners) when the individuals themselves sometimes don't even have solid family trees. Even then we can only trace back a few hundred years most of the time, and certainly it's impossible to say where people originated 500+ years back in most places of Europe.

In terms of the M335 "Germans", and the R1b1* Spaniards. Three guesses what population of expelled people lived in those countries?

The war is far from lost, in fact the evidence grows stronger as we have collected more data that R1b1*, and R1b1c most likely did not originate in Europe.

I tried to make this point on R-L51* too. Try to go back and visualize the whole Y DNA tree from R1b (M343) down. There is a tremendous amount of data for L11, particularly P312 and U106. These two are very heavy/big branches to a lopsided R1b-M343 bush. There are scant remnant branches of the M343+ L23- and to the L23+ L11- branches, but they are are scant enough to be possibly misleading. Major parts of those old branches are missing and have gone extinct or have otherwise died off.

Well, L23(xL51) is heavily used in terms of calculating variance, are we to be worried about major parts of those old branches being missing or having gone extinct? I mean some of the meaningful conclusions about the origin of R1b in Europe have been based off L23(xL51) diversity, but since you mentioned those concerns, now I’m starting to worry.

This is just my opinion, but beyond L11, the only groupings of R1b that have enough data and differentiation in data to discern much with are R-L23xL11 groups.

How do you know they have enough data? They (L23xL51) seem to be big enough in places like the Caucasus, and Turkey, the Middle East, as they are the dominant R1b clade over there, what makes you think that they haven’t suffered the same effects as R1b-M269(xL23), I mean perhaps European L23xL51 is nothing but what survives of a recent expansion, the old L23xL51 folks are either long dead, or show up as outlier haplotypes every now and then, but given the samples sizes they have very little effect on the variance of L23xL51.

I am not at all sure if we have enough data and that it is representative enough. I am saying that there is a difference between looking at R-M269xL23 data versus R-L23xL11 versus R-P312 or R-U106 long haplotype data from our DNA projects.

M269 has to be older than L23, phylogenetically speaking, and should exhibit much higher STR diversity than its g-grandsons P312 and U106. However, the M269* from long haplotypes in our DNA projects does not exhibit the relative STR diversity reflective of its age.

L23 has to be younger than M269 and older than P312 and U106, phylogenetically speaking. Therefore L23xL11 should have less STR diversity than M269 and more than P312 and U106.

This is simplistic and inconclusive, but I'll report on this and you (all) decide. Here are the relative variances (to P312) for are all of the L23xL11 67 STR haplotypes I can find in our DNA projects.R-L23xL11___________: Var=1.53 [Mixed 49] (N=166)R-L23xL11___________: Var=1.49 [Linear 36] (N=166)

166 in total, not a small data set, but do you notice these numbers like 1.53 and 1.49 represent about 50% greater variance than P312 and a bit more than that for U106? In my opinion, a 50% difference is worth considering.

Let's consider the Steppes as NOT being European for purposes of this discussion (BTW, I've been doing this all along so I apologize if I've not been clear.)

Let's remove the European and New World MDKAs and I come up with 88 67 STR haplotypes that are effectively SW Asian and Steppes related.R-L23xL11___________: Var=1.75 [Mixed 49] (N=88)R-L23xL11___________: Var=1.75 [Linear 36] (N=88)

I'm not sure on much of anything, but this is not a bad data set as far as size and resolution (# STRs.) I reported it. You (all) decide if it means anything.

wow! 75% older than L11. L11 keeps coming in about 4600 years old so that makes L23xL11 around 8000 years old - 6000BC. That is old and presumably older than any single one of the surviving L23 subclades or regional groups. However, it is not as old as the inception of farming and again I have to emphasise that everything - distribution of R1b above L51, variance, the shape of the R1b tree etc all point to most R1b being holed up in a non-farming area before then and not on the path into Europe. A date of 6000BC is close to the date of dairy pastoralism in NW Anatolia and spreading into Europe a few centuries later. However, I am no longer convinced of the link because dairy pastoralism spread steadily through Europe from SE to NW c. 5500-4000BC and I dont think that well matches the picture of L11 at all.